Texas Man?s Pregnant Wife Never Wanted to Have a Gun in the House ? But Now She?s Sure Glad He Insisted | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/13/texas-mans-pregnant-wife-never-wanted-to-have-a-gun-in-the-house-but-now-shes-sure-glad-he-insisted/)

If this had been in the UK, the woman would be arrested, the criminals would file suit, as they now suffer from anxiety and panic attacks, have trouble sleeping, etc. They suspect that every house is protected and so they can hardly carry out their chosen profession!:{

Oktas8

14th Sep 2013, 04:27

When the two men realized the woman was armed, they took off towards their truck. Alex’s “adrenaline kicked in” and she shot once at the vehicle.

I note that the presence of a gun in the house very likely saved this woman from becoming a serious crime victim. So this is not an anti-gun rant. That said...

In Texas, is an ordinary citizen allowed to shoot at a vehicle trying to escape the scene? Seems a bit dodgy to me. Is it not illegal to shoot people in the back whilst they are running away?

Anecdote - this happened in New Zealand a few years ago, but the context was that a farmer in a remote area had been robbed several times by the same gang. Upon surprising them in the act of robbery again, he shot at their car whilst they fled, seriously injuring at least one of the gang. The police charged him (as they should, under local law), but the jury of his peers refused to find him guilty due to the gang having targeted him over many months. A good outcome all round, as all parties did their jobs under the law but common sense still prevailed.

sitigeltfel

14th Sep 2013, 05:41

A similar incident occurred in Nice on Wednesday morning.

When opening his jewellers shop, the 67 year old owner was confronted by two youths brandishing a shotgun, was forced to open the safe and hand over his stock. As the youths tried to make their getaway on a scooter he pulled out an unlicensed handgun and shot one of them in the back, killing him. The 19yo "victim" turns out to have 14 convictions for robbery, violence and traffic offences and the massive support being given to the jeweller by the public shows that the robber got what he deserved. In the meantime, the jeweller has been electronically tagged and ordered to live away from Nice until the prosecutors decide what charges to lay on him.

sitigeltfel - I definitely think the jeweller should be charged ..... for failing to nail the second one! :E

I seem to recall an incident some years ago here. A local farmer in the SW of W.A. was angered about the constant theft of petrol from tanks near a shed that was in one of his paddocks, that was quite a distance from his homestead.

Reports to the Police fell on disinterested ears, along with the standard question - "Do you have any idea of who the offenders might be?" :rolleyes:
He decided to set up camp overnight in the shed to see if he could catch the culprits. After a couple of nights, he was awoken by the sound of a vehicle.
He jumped up, grabbed his shotgun, and prepared to confront the offenders. They offenders turned out to be some Indigenes.
They bailed by jumping in the car and flooring it away from the shed. As they went, the farmer fired a shot that blew out the back window.

The indigenes laid a complaint about being shot at. None of the indigenes was hurt and none of them were charged for attempted theft.
However, the farmer was charged with "discharging a firearm with intent to maim or kill".

Upon fronting the court, the farmer described his frustration at the constant thefts and the disinterested Police response.
The judge barely listened to any of this, but turned on the farmer and berated him savagely for the "attempted murder" of "possibly innocent victims" - and then went on to fine him $600, and banned him from holding a firearms licence permanently.

Needless to say, many were outraged about the poor treatment of the farmer and the lack of punishment of the thieves. However - one small gain was - fuel thefts in the district dropped off substantially for a long period of time, thereafter. :)

Lon More

14th Sep 2013, 06:33

She's happy now. I wonder how she'll feel in a few years time when her kid finds it and manages to kill himself with it? To be useful for self-defence it has to be loaded an easily accessible; for safety, empty and locked away.

In the UK there was the case of Tony Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer))

500N

14th Sep 2013, 06:38

One track

A farm I used to go on had the same problem - petrol thefts from
his small tank, padlock always cut etc. He warned everyone who
worked on the farm to not use the tank, put in a small amount
of petrol + sugar and god knows what else.

Sure enough, the thieves struck, the car JUST made it past the
gate to the next door paddock where of course it stopped dead.
That was on the way home to where they had a camp.

The engine never went again :ok:

FerrypilotDK

14th Sep 2013, 07:48

I know of a similar case and the farmer put diesel in the tank with equal results. Love it!

In Denmark a jeweler who was robbed numerous times also pulled a gun, of course, he was also hauled off to jail. As was the man that had a burglary. When the police came to the house, he was arrested for being in violation, by having a cavalry sword, that had belonged to his grandfather, hanging above the fireplace. It was not licensed(!) under a law meant to deal with gang members having knives in discos, bars, town centres. Typical "letter of the law stuff," rather than common sense!

Re having a weapon close, yet safe. I have a trigger lock installed in any weapon. Means the key has to be available, but not anywhere that unintended persons have access to it. Slows down reaction time by 10 seconds.

Still better than being a victim!

Remember William Tell took two bolts for his crossbow on the famous day he was forced to shoot the apple off his son's head. When the nobleman asked why, he was told that if he had killed his son, the second bolt was for the nobleman.

Don't be a victim!

500N

14th Sep 2013, 07:53

Lon More

That is everything that is wrong with the UK law and the thieves
having more rights than the victim.

Lon More

14th Sep 2013, 08:31

That is everything that is wrong with the UK law and the thieves
having more rights than the victim.

Convicted by a jury for the crime. The previous burglaries were questionable A bit difficult to justify using a pump-action shotgun for shooting rabbits.
BTW He's at it again (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/398741/Farmer-Tony-Martin-Lock-me-up-or-I-ll-kill-another-burglar); prison or at least a secure mental health institute would seem the safest bet for all concerned.

Cacophonix

14th Sep 2013, 09:03

Ah yet another 'gun thread'... and to think that I when I first saw the thread title I thought I was going to get some insight into the devious mind of a demon Texas hold 'em player. ;)

Caco

radeng

14th Sep 2013, 12:28

This is another case where I believe that the State should reimburse the cost of the bullet, as shooting it allowed apprehension of the criminals.

Checkboard

14th Sep 2013, 13:09

They suspect that every house is protected and so they can hardly carry out their chosen profession!
Guns being available in Texas didn't stop these Texas guy, did it? :rolleyes:

PLovett

14th Sep 2013, 13:35

No Checkboard, it didn't but the rate of home invasions where the occupants are home in the US is considerably lower than in the UK (something like 16% to 54% I think). The risk of finding an armed occupant does seem to concentrate the mind of the possible perpetrator.

Lonewolf_50

14th Sep 2013, 17:49

In Texas, is an ordinary citizen allowed to shoot at a vehicle trying to escape the scene?
Generally, no, according to my brother-in-law the police lieutenant. It would take a very unusual combination of circumstances for the police not to write up a citation/charge in such a case.